324.7731 

C431t 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


UNIVERSH 
ILLINOIS  L 


AT  URBANA-C 
STAC 


L161— 0-1096 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/truthaboutthevotOOchic 


The  Truth 


about 


Machine  Deal” 

r/fiv 

«*  #v  ^ 

4 "^  ' . •• 


Compiled  and  Approved  by 

Ch  as.  H.  Kellermann, 

Howard  S.  Taylor, 

Election  Commissioners. 


William  H.  Stuart,, 
Chief  C 


d278 


CX*\^ 

THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  THE 
VOTING  MACHINE  DEAL 

In  big  cities  newspaper  sensations  follow  each  other  so  rapidly  the 
average  reader  has  no  time  nor  opportunity  to  obtain  the  evidence  necessary 
to  determine  the  truth  or  falsity  of  printed  gossip;  and  so  it  often  happens 
that  an  utterly  false  story,  if  sufficiently  repeated,  makes  an  impression  on 
the  public  mind  though  there  be  not  a particle  of  evidence  to  justify  it. 

The  “voting  machine  scandal”  is  an  illustration. 

Two  years  ago  certain  Chicago  newspapers  which  for  ten  years  previ- 
ously had  zealously  demanded  the  installation  of  voting  machines  in  Chicago, 
suddenly  reversed  their  former  views  and  began  to  oppose  the  project. 

This  opposition  soon  developed  into  malicious  but  cautious  insinuations 
that  the  majority  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  who  favored  the 
Empire  Voting  Machine  and  had  made  a contract  to  purchase  1,000  machines, 
were  corruptly  influenced  or,  at  least,  were  unfair,  rash  and  extravagant  in 
their  plans  and  methods. 

Certain  bipartisan  political  bosses  who  did  not  like  the  notion  of  an 
accurate  and  infallible  count  of  votes,  such  as  the  machine  gives,  helped  to 
boost  the  scandal,  and  one  or  two  defeated  voting  machine  agents  supplied, 
from  time  to  time,  items  of  misinformation  to  keep  things  going. 

The  result  of  this  long  continued  campaign  of  calumny  was  an  inquiry 
made  by  a special  grand  jury  last  April,  and  other  investigations  are  pending. 

At  no  time  have  we  been  solicitous  about  the  outcome  of  any  legal 
inquiry  concerning  our  conduct.  But  we  are  anxious  lest  a protracted  cam- 
paign of  mere  gossip  may  gradually  bias  the  minds  of  citizens  against  the 
use  of  voting  machines  and  thus  delay  a reform  which  we  earnestly  believe  is 
in  the  interest  of  all  Chicago. 

We,  therefore,  present  to  our  fellow  citizens  the  following  pages  con- 
taining “THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  VOTING  MACHINE  DEAL.” 

In  order  to  squarely  meet  each  insinuation  the  matter  concerning  the 
voting  machine  contract  is  presented  in  the  following  questions  and  answers: 

I. 

WERE  ANY  OF  THE  ELECTION  COMMISSIONERS  BRIBED 
OR  IN  ANY  WAY  CORRUPTLY  INFLUENCED  TO  PURCHASE 
THE  VOTING  MACHINES? 

The  most  authoritative  answer  to  this  question  is  the  report  of  the 
April  grand  jury,  1913.  The  matter  was  presented  to  the  jury  at  the  urgent 
request  of  County  Judge  John  E.  Owens,  who  demanded  that  the  subject  be 
“probed  to  the  bottom.”  The  jury  sat  upon  the  matter  for  two  weeks,  exam- 
ining forty-nine  witnesses  in  all.  Their  inquiry  resulted  in  a UNANIMOUS 
report,  from  which  the  following  is  quoted: 

“It  is  due  the  State’s  Attorney  to  say  in  this  connection  that  every  witness  whose 
presence  was  desired  by  the  grand  jury  and  who  was  within  its  jurisdiction  was  sum- 
moned and  produced  by  the  State’s  Attorney. 

“The  grand  jury  in  the  course  of  this  investigation  has  called  before  it  and  has 
rigidly  examined  every  person  whose  name  was  brought  to  its  attention  from  any 
source  whatsoever  with  the  intimation  that  such  person  had  or  might  have  any  knowledge 
with  regard  to  any  irregularity  in  connection  with  the  selection  of  the  machine  or  the 
award  of  the  contract. 


3 


“There  have  been  called  before  the  grand  jury  in  pursuance  of  his  policy  members 
and  employes  of  the  present  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  and  of  the  previous 
Board  of  Election  Commissioners,  the  experts  selected  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  the 
machine  submitted  by  the  several  bidders,  reporters,  editors  and  proprietors  of  news- 
papers in  which  insinuations  of  graft  or  corruption  have  appeared,  members  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  who,  it  is  reported,  have  intimated  that  there  was 
graft  in  connection  with  the  transaction,  officers  and  investigators  of  voluntary  civic 
organizations  that  had  criticized  the  award  of  the  contract,  makers  and  salesmen  of  the 
machines,  which  were  in  competition  and  were  unsuccessful  at  the  time  of  the  awarding 
of  the  contract,  stockholders  in  the  various  companies  manufacturing  the  machines,  and, 
as  has  been  before  said,  every  person  whose  name  had  been  suggested  to  the  grand 
jury  as  that  of  one  who  might  be  able  to  furnish  some  clew  to  any  irregularity  if  such 
did  exist  in  connection  with  the  selection  of  the  machines  and  the  awarding  of  the 
contract.” 

“None  of  the  parties  thus  summoned  has  furnished  to  the  grand  jury  any  facts 
giving  evidence  of  criminality  in  connection  with  the  award  of  the  voting  machine 
contract. 

“We  have  found  no  trace  of  money  or  favors  conferred,  or  of  pledges  to  confer 
hereafter  money  or  favors,  in  the  return  for  the  selection  or  purchase  of  a machine 
for  which  the  contract  was  given.” 

On  May  2nd,  the  day  following  the  jury’s  report,  Benjamin  T.  Lewis, 
foreman  of  the  jury,  and  a man  of  high  standing,  in  an  interview  given  to 
the  press,  said : 

“We  made  a complete  and  thorough  investigation,  and  our  report  represents  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  grand  jury.  It  speaks  for  itself. 

“We  found  not  one  scintilla  of  evidence  tending  even  remotely  to  show  that 
there  was  graft  or  corruption  in  the  voting  machine  contract. 

“A  surprising  thing  was  that,  after  all  the  rumors  and  stories  in  newspapers  and 
of  many  people,  nothing  was  found  to  justify  a single  criticism  of  the  contract.” 

During  the  investigation,  and  afterward,  the  same  mendacious  news- 
papers that  had  invented  and  circulated  these,  false  charges  sought  to  dis- 
credit the  grand  jury  and  State’s  Attorney  by  intimating  that  those  officials 
were  united  to  “whitewash”  the  Election  Commissioners. 

The  truth  is,  the  grand  jury  was  drawn  by  lot  from  a large  list  of 
jurors  previously  prepared  by  the  Jury  Commissioners  of  Cook  County. 

As  to  residence,  the  jurors  were  drawn  from  all  quarters  of  the  city 
and  suburbs. 

As  to  avocations,  there  were  on  the  jury  four  business  managers,  two 
manufacturers,  two  salesmen,  three  officers  of  corporations,  three  real  estate 
dealers,  one  merchant,  one  architect,  one  florist,  one  typefounder,  one  civil 
engineer,  one  contractor,  one  superintendent,  one  mechanic,  and  one  retired 
from  business. 

As  to  political  affiliations,  there  were  thirteen  Republicans,  six  Demo- 
crats, two  Progressives,  and  two  Independents. 

Clearly  such  a jury  could  not  have  been  used  for  the  purpose  of  “white- 
washing” anybody.  Insinuations  against  their  candor  or  competence  is  of 
a piece  with  the  rest  of  the  unfounded  newspaper  talk  about  “the  voting 
machine  deal.” 

Their  report  shows  that  they  were  not  hampered  or  controlled  in  any 
manner  by  the  State’s  Attorney,  but  freely  examined  the  witnesses  them- 
selves, and  arrived  at  a unanimous  conclusion.  And  it  shows  that  there  was 
no  conflicting  testimony  whatever,  but  that  none  of  the  witnesses  had  fur- 
nished to  the  grand  jury  “any  facts  giving  evidence  of  criminality  in  connec- 
tion with  the  award  of  the  voting  machine  contract.” 

The  collapse  of  a canard  could  not  have  been  more  complete!  The 
newspaper  editors  who  for  two  years  had  hinted  graft  every  few  days  with 
exclamation  points  and  staring  head-lines,  were  not  able  to  show  to  the  grand 
jury  a single  fact  to  justify  their  accusations.  It  was  a flat  failure. 

4 


The  bad  faith  of  these  accusations  is  evidenced  by  another  circumstance. 
The  gossipers  knew  as  much — or  as  little — two  years  ago  as  they  knew  when 
they  were  summoned  before  the  grand  jury.  Why  did  they  wait  so  long 
before  trying  out  the  matter?  The  City  Council  and  the  grand  juries  were 
always  accessible.  Why  did  not  these  scandal  mongers  long  ago  file  informa- 
tion that  would  compel  an  investigation? 

Was  it  because  they  wished  to  nurse  along  the  scandal  and  carry  it 
over  into  the  next  campaign  as  a political  asset? 

Or  did  they  wish  to  do  something  larger — to  keep  up  a clamor  about 
“THE  VOTING  MACHINE  DEAL”  and  thus  divert  public  attention  from 
the  really  important  corruptions  of  rich  tax-dodgers  and  predatory  public 
utility  corporations — all  of  which  were  dead  ripe  for  a thorough  Lexow 
overhauling? 

II. 

DID  THE  BOARD  OF  ELECTION  COMMISSIONERS  PAY  AN 
EXTRAVAGANT  PRICE  FOR  VOTING  MACHINES? 

The  minutes  of  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  show  that  there  were 
but  four  machine  companies  which  appeared  at  the  competitive  examination 
in  Chicago  two  years  ago.  In  fact,  there  are  only  four  types  of  machines 
now  actually  in  the  market. 

The  bids  of  these  companies  were  written  and  were  spread  upon  the 
minutes  of  the  Election  Commissioners’  office.  They  were  as  follows: 


The  International  Voting  Machine,  each.... $ 900.00 

The  Empire  “ “ “ 942.50 

The  Winslow  “ “ “ 1,000.00 

The  Triumph  “ “ “ 1,000.00 


From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  price  paid  for  the  Empire  machine 
was  not  excessive  as  compared  with  the  prices  of  other  machines. 

Neither  was  it  excessive  as  compared  with  the  prices  asked  in  the 
competitive  bidding  offered  to  the  old  Board  on  Sept.  15,  1909.  The  official 
minutes  show  that  the  bids  then  offered  for  nine  column  and  seventy  key 
machines  were  as  follows: 


Empire  Machine,  each. $ 975.00 

Willix  “ “ 1,050.00 

Triumph  “ “ 925.00 

Winslow  “ “ 900.00 


Neither  was  it  excessive  when  compared  with  the  prices  paid  for  voting 
machines  in  other  cities. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  is  supplied  with  U.  S.  Standard  Voting  machines,  a 
machine  made  by  the  Empire  Company,  and  substantially  of  the  same  mech- 
anism as  the  Empire  machine.  The  Milwaukee  machine  has  210  keys  for 
votes  (which  is  just  one-third  the  capacity  of  the  Chicago  machine)  and  cost 
$6oo  each. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  also  has  U.  S.  Standard  machines  with  420  keys 
for  votes  (just  two-thirds  the  capacity  of  the  Chicago  machine),  and  the 
price  paid  was  $750  each. 

South  Bend.,  Ind.,  is  supplied  with  Empire  machines  of  450  keys  for 
votes  (just  five-sevenths  the  capacity  of  the  Chicago  machine),  and  cost  $800 
each. 

Elgin,  111.,  has  quite  recently  installed  International  voting  machines. 
This  machine  has  360  keys  for  votes  (just  four-sevenths  the  capacity  of  the 
Chicago  machine),  and  cost  $750  each. 


5 


The  foregoing  examples  fairly  illustrate  tlie  prices  paid  everywhere. 
From  data  on  file  in  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  Empire  Company  have  installed  about  5,000  machines  in  the  United  States, 
while  all  other  companies  together  have  installed  less  than  100;  and  that  the 
Empire  Company  has  everywhere  asked  and  obtained  a uniform  price  in  pro- 
portion to  the  size  of  the  machine  sold. 


III. 

DID  THE  ELECTION  COMMISSIONERS  “JAM  THE  CON- 
TRACT THROUGH  SUDDENLY’’? 

The  newspaper  story  that  the  Commissioners  acted  with  suspicious 
hurry  in  their  purchase  of  voting  machines  has  no  justification. 

The  truth  is  that  informal  discussion  of  the  voting  machine  subject 
was  commenced  by  the  present  Board  about  January  15,  1911,  and  the  contract 
was  let  July  21st,  following — a period  of  discussion  covering  full  six  months. 
Following  are  the  dates  and  items  of  proceedings  by  the  Board  in  the  spring 
of  1911 : 

The  minutes  of  the  Board  show  that  on  March  4th  the  Chief  Clerk,  under 
instructions  of  the  Board,  sent  out  registered  letters  to  every  person  and  firm 
known  to  have  had  at  any  time  voting  machines  for  sale,  inviting  them  to  a 
competitive  examination  of  machines.  Thirty-nine  persons  and  firms  were 
thus  addressed. 

By  March  15  following,  the  four  machines  which  afterward  actually 
competed  were  placed  in  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  and  were  daily 
on  public  exhibition  and  under  discussion  until  the  contract  was  finally 
awarded. 

On  April  4th,  at  the  municipal  election,  sixteen  machines  belonging  to 
the  Empire  Company  were  used  for  voting  in  as  many  precincts*  and  were 
found  highly  effective. 

On  April  26th  the  Commissioners,  after  much  previous  discussion, 
adopted  specifications  describing  the  character  of  the  machine  required,  and 
the  Board  fixed  May  22nd  as  the  date  upon  which  bids  would  be  opened. 

This  near  date  for  opening  bids  was  chosen  because  the  Board  was  per- 
fectly informed  that  all  the  machines  which  were  in  any  condition  to  com- 
pete were  already  on  the  ground. 

Also  on  April  26th  the  State  Voting  Machine  Commission  completed 
their  examination  of  the  Empire  Machine  and  certified  that  it  in  every  way 
complied  with  the  Voting  Machine  Law  of  Illinois. 

On  May  22nd  the  time  to  open  the  bids  was  continued  to  May  26th, 
then  to  June  1st,  and  subsequently,  upon  request  of  Judge  Owens,  it  was 
determined  to  receive  bids  at  any  time  during  the  examination  of  machines 
by  the  experts. 

On  June  1st  the  bids  of  the  four  competing  companies  were  opened,  but 
no  award  was  made. 

On  June  3d,  at  the  request  of  the  Board  previously  made,  County  Judge 
Owens  selected  a commission  of  three  experts  to  examine  and  report  upon  the 
efficiency  of  the  competing  machines.  The  experts  appointed  by  Judge  Owens 
were : 

Paul  M.  Chamberlain,  formerly  head  of  the  Mechanical  Engineering 
Department  of  Lewis  Institute,  and  a prominent  consulting  mechanical  engi- 
neer of  Chicago. 


6 


W.  L.  Abbott,  Chief  Operating  Engineer  of  the  Commonwealth-Edison 
Company,  and  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  of 
Illinois. 

William  Wooley,  Chief  Mechanical  Expert  of  the  Moon-Hopkins  Billing 
Company. 

Shortly  after  their  appointment  the  experts  commenced  their  examina- 
tion of  the  four  competing  machines  and  continued  their  work  from  day  to 
day  until  report  was  made. 

On  June  26th  the  above  named  experts  rendered  a joint  written  report 
upon  the  four  machines  examined  by  them.  In  order  of  excellence  they 
placed  the  Empire  machine  first,  and  in  the  concluding  paragraph  of  their 
report  said: 

“Your  Commission  believes  that  the  voting  machine  art  has  been  developed  to  a 
point  where  machines  may  be  installed  in  Chicago  with  safety  and  economy;  and  that 
such  installation  would  be  the  means  of  greatly  minimizing  the  possibility  of  fraud  at 
the  polls.” 

On  July  7th  the  Attorney  for  the  Board  rendered  a written  opinion  to 
the  effect  that  the  Board  had  ample  power,  under  the  law,  to  purchase 
machines. 

On  July  2 1st  the  Board,  by  a majority  vote,  resolved  to  purchase  1,000 
Empire  Voting  Machines. 

On  July  25th  a contract  for  such  purchase  was  signed  by  Commission- 
ers Kellermann  and  Taylor. 

From  the  foregoing  (all  of  which  is  a matter  of  record)  it  will  be  seen 
that  so  far  from  “jamming  the  contract  through”  the  Board  was  studying 
the  problem  for  full  six  months  before  the  contract  was  signed  and,  in  the 
course  of  the  investigation,  took  every  precaution  which  seemed  reasonable. 

The  reader  must  remember,  however,  that  the  Board  was  not  investigat- 
ing a new  subject. 

On  the  contrary,  voting  machines  had  been  under  discussion  and  actual 
demonstration  in  Chicago  for  a number  of  years,  and  full  data  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  present  Board  when  they  began  their  inquiry.  The  following 
items  will  show  how  well  ripened  the  subject  was: 

1.  After  some  years  of  inquiry  and  discussion  the  proposition  “For  the 
adoption  of  voting  machines”  was  submitted  to  the  electors  of  Chicago  at  the 
general  election  held  November  8,  1904.  Pending  the  election  the  subject 
was  widely  discussed  by  the  press,  the  people  and  the  election  officials,  and 
the  experience  of  many  other  cities  using  machines  was  sought  and  obtained. 
As  a result  of  such  discussion  and  inquiry  the  voters  at  that  election  decided 
in  favor  of  adopting  voting  machines  by  a vote  of  229,221  for  machines,  and 
27,081  against  machines — a majority  of  more  than  8 to  1 in  favor  of  voting 
machines.  It  was  the  people’s  mandate  to  their  officials  to  buy  machines — 
and  that  was  nearly  nine  years  ago ! 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  at  that  election  two  propositions  aimed  to 
secure  election  reforms  were  submitted  to  the  voters — one  for  direct  primaries 
and  one  for  the  adoption  of  voting  machines  and  the  proposition  to  adopt 
voting  machines  was  given  over  3,000  more  votes  than  were  cast  for  direct 
primaries.  Nevertheless,  the  direct  primary  reform  went  rapidly  forward, 
while  the  people’s  mandate  to  install  voting  machines  was  disregarded. 

2.  Actual  demonstration  of  the  efficiency  of  voting  machines  had  been 
made  at  the  polls  in  Chicago  elections  at  follows:  April,  1904,  one  machine; 
November,  1904,  one  machine;  November,  1905,  eleven  machines;  April, 
1907,  thirty-seven  machines,  and  April,  1911,  sixteen  machines.  In  the  three 
elections  last  named  all  but  five  of  the  machines  used  belonged  to  the  Empire 
Company  and  were  built  upon  the  same  general  mechanical  principles  as  the 


7 


machine  finally  purchased  by  the  present  Board.  Each  of  these  election 
experiments  demonstrated  the  high  efficiency  of  the  machines,  as  is  shown  by 
the  comments  of  election  officials  and  all  the  Chicago  newspapers  now  on  file 
in  the  Election  Commissioners’  office. 

3.  The  experience  of  other  cities  which  had  been  long  using  voting 
machines  was  well  known  and  authentic  testimonials  as  to  their  great  effici- 
ency were  on  file  in  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  when  the  present 
Board  began  its  investigation.  These  testimonials  show  that  machines  have 
been  continually  used  as  follows: 


In  Rochester,  N.  Y., 

Pop.  218,149,  since  1898 

In  Utica,  N.  Y., 

it 

74,419,  ‘ 

1898 

In  Buffalo,  N.  Y., 

if 

423,715,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Oswego,  N.  Y., 

if 

23,368,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Ithaca,  N.  Y., 

a 

14,802,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y., 

a 

27,936,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Elmira,  N.  Y., 

a 

37,176,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Schenectady,  N.  Y., 

a 

72,826,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Syracuse,  N.  Y., 

a 

137,249,  ‘ 

1900 

In  Milwaukee,  Wis., 

a 

373,857,  ‘ 

1903 

In  Indianapolis,  Ind., 

a 

233,650,  ‘ 

1904 

In  Minneapolis,  Minn., 

ft 

301,408,  ‘ 

1908 

All  the  machines  used  in  the  above  named  cities  are  substantially  of  the 
Empire  type  and  the  patents  belong  to  the  Empire  Company. 

The  Board,  therefore,  knew  when  they  began  consideration  of  the  voting 
machine  project  that  machines  (of  this  type  at  least)  were  an  established 
success — as  much  so  as  adding  machines  or  typewriters. 

4.  The  present  Board  also  had  before  it  the  reports  of  experts  who, 
under  the  direction  of  a preceding  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  had 
made  examinations  of  competing  machines  in  November,  1907;  March,  1908; 
October,  1909,  and  July,  1910. 

5.  That  the  foregoing  election  tests  and  actual  examples  were  highly 
favorable  to  the  machines  is  evidenced  by  interviews  given  the  city  press  by 
former  County  Judges  Orrin  N.  Carter  and  Lewis  Rinaker.  Judge  Carter 
said,  February  1,  1907: 

“All  obstacles  have  been  cleared  away  and  I am  in  favor  of  immediate  use  of 
voting  machines.  They  are  simpler  to  the  average  voter  than  the  present  system,  and 
(with  the  expedition  I have  spoken  of  before)  there  will  be  a generally  improved 
condition  at  elections.” 

Judge  Rinaker  said,  March  8,  1909: 

“I  cannot  figure  out  how  the  Finance  Committee  thought  it  was  economizing 
when  it  refused  the  voting  machine  appropriation  we  asked  for.  This  action  will  simply 
mean  that  the  machines  will  cost  more  in  the  end  for  we  are  going  ahead  and  purchase 
them  just  as  we  had  planned  to.” 

Mr.  Isaac  N.  Powell,  formerly  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners,  after  making  wide  inquiry  among  cities  using  machines,  sum- 
marized his  information  in  an  article  written  by  him  for  the  Technical  World 
Magazine,  February  number,  1906,  in  the  following  words: 

“It  is  the  almost  universal  experience  that  voting  machines  present  the  following 
advantages  over  any  other  method  of  registering  the  will  of  the  people.  They  compel 
every  voter  to  vote  in  secrecy;  they  make  it  mechanically  impossible  to  cast  a defective 
ballot.  In  Illinois  alone,  at  every  general  election  40,000  voters  lose  their  votes  because 
of  wrongly  marked  paper  ballots.  They  cannot  be  made  to  sIigw  results.  They  prevent 
error.  When  the  voting  is  ended  the  count  is  ended.  They  largely  reduce  the  cost  of 
the  election.  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  saved  $12,000  over  the  Australian  system  at  each  election.” 

6.  Beside  these  expressions  from  the  County  Judges  who  were  at  the 
time  in  charge  of  the  election  system  of  Chicago,  there  was  on  file  in  the 
Election  Commissioners’  office  a vast  number  of  clippings  from  all  the  great 


8 


daily  newspapers  of  the  city  showing  that  without  exception  every  one  of 
them  were  urgent  for  the  installation  of  voting  machines.  Want  of  space 
forbids  the  quotation  of  many  of  these  press  utterances,  but  the  following  are 
fairly  representative  of  all : 

Editorial,  Chicago  Daily  News,  March  5,  1909: 

“It  has  been  conceded  for  a number  of  years  by  the  public  and  the  election 
commissioners  that  Chicago  must  be  provided  with  voting  machines  as  soon  as  possible. 
At  last  conditions  are  deemed  right  by  the  commissioners  for  the  taking  of  bids  from 
the  voting  machine  companies,  satisfactory  improvements  having  been  made  in  these 
mechanical  devices  in  the  last  few  years.” 

Editorial,  Record-Herald,  September  20,  1909: 

“Long,  long  ago  the  Legislature  authorized  the  use  of  voting  machines  in  Chicago 
elections.  Long,  long  ago,  though  not  quite  so  long,  the  Supreme  Court  sustained  the 
law.  Several  times  the  City  Council  has  made  provisional  appropriations  for  a beginning 
in  equipping  the  city. 

“The  history  of  the  many  advertisements  for  bids,  of  the  many  examinations  of 
machines  submitted,  and  of  the  many  excuses  offered  for  postponing  action,  would  be 
tiresomely  long.  We  refrain  from  going  into  it.  Some  of  the  excuses  may  be  classified 
from  plausible  to  fair,  when  considered  individually;  but  all  the  excuses  taken  in  a 
row  are  distinctly  lacking  in  plausibility. 

“We  have  just  had  new  bids  submitted  and  a new  set  of  tests  is  just  beginning. 
Coincidentally,  however,  we  hear  the  first  pipings  of  a new-old  excuse  for  non-action — 
namely,  that  a new  primary  law  impends,  and  that  it  is  wise  to  wait,  wait,  wait. 

“Incidentally,  it  is  known  that  the  introduction  of  machines  will  mean  a great 
saving  in  election  expenses,  partly  in  doing  away  with  the  printing  bills  and  partly  in 
reducing  the  number  of  party  workers  who  must  be  paid  for  service  at  the  polls  as 
precinct  officials. 

“The  reduction  of  expenses  is  one  of  the  great  direct  arguments  for  buying  the 
machines. 

“Is  it  also  indirectly  one  of  the  causes  of  the  delay?” 

7.  The  Board  also  had  before  it  the  report  of  a Chicago  grand  jury 
which  had  heard  testimony  on  election  frauds  for  an  entire  month. 

In  their  report,  rendered  to  the  criminal  court  December  4,  1908,  the 
grand  jury  said: 

“From  the  facts  coming  to  our  knowledge,  we  express  serious  doubts  whether 
there  has  been  any  honest  general  or  city  election  in  Chicago  for  years  past.” 

After  discussing  tentatively  several  methods  of  correcting  this  evil, 
they  said  as  the  conclusion  and  summary  of  it  all : 

“Therefore,  to  reduce  the  opportunity  for  errors,  prevent  frauds,  lessen  the  cost, 
secure  prompt  announcement  of  the  result  of  the  election,  and  prevent  the  holding 
back  of  the  announcement  of  results  in  one  ward  in  order  to  defeat  some  candidate 
who  is  leading  in  another  ward,  we  recommend  that  satisfactory  voting  machines  should 
be  purchased  and  installed  at  each  precinct  at  the  earliest  practical  moment.” 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  the  voting  machine  contract  was 
not  “jammed  through  suddenly.” 

The  TRUTH  is  that  the  voting  machine  subject  had  been  under  examina- 
tion in  Chicago  for  more  than  ten  years  past  and  the  accumulated  results  of 
this  long  study  were  supplemented  by  six  months  of  diligent  inquiry  by  the 
present  Board  before  the  contract  was  signed. 

IV. 

DID  THE  ELECTION  COMMISSIONERS  “PUT  THROUGH 
THE  VOTING  MACHINE  DEAL  SECRETLY  BEHIND  CLOSED 
DOORS”? 

No.  This  newspaper  story  is  entirely  false. 

The  TRUTH  is  that  the  present  Board  has  never  held  an  executive 
meeting  behind  closed  doors  since  it  entered  office.  Shortly  after  their 


9 


appointment  the  Election  Commissioners  unanimously  adopted  a resolution 
to  have  all  meetings  open — and  that  policy  has  been  maintained  ever  since. 

The  minutes  of  the  Board  show  that  at  every  meeting  of  the  Board  at 
which  important  steps  were  taken  concerning  the  purchase  of  voting  machines 
the  various  machine  agents  or  their  attorneys  were  present  and  participated 
in  the  discussion,  and  that  such  meetings  were  open  to  representatives  of  the 
press,  who  promptly  reported  the  proceedings. 

The  minutes  also  show  that  the  only  restrictions  that  were  placed  upon 
any  part  of  the  proceedings  was  upon  the  expert’s  work  of  examining  the 
competing  machines.  By  resolution  of  the  Board  the  persons  permitted  to 
be  present  in  the  room  where  the  experts  were  at  work  were  limited  to  the 
experts,  the  members  of  the  Board  or  their  proxies,  the  Board’s  Attorney,  the 
Chief  Clerk  and  the  agent  of  the  particular  machine  at  the  time  being 
examined. 

This  restriction,  as  the  minutes  show,  was  adopted  upon  the  request  of 
all  the  representatives  of  the  competing  machines,  each  of  whom  objected  to 
having  the  interior  of  his  machine  dissected  in  the  presence  of  competitors. 
This  restriction  was  also  in  pursuance  of  the  practice  that  had  prevailed  at 
all  former  examinations  by  experts. 

No.  The  story  of  “closed  doors”  is  wholly  an  impudent  fabrication! 

V. 

WERE  THE  VOTING  MACHINES  WHICH  WERE  USED  AT 
THE  GENERAL  ELECTION  OF  NOVEMBER  5,  1912,  TAMPERED 
WITH  WHILE  IN  STORAGE  AFTER  THE  ELECTION? 

No.  The  story  is  founded  on  a ludricous  misapprehension. 

The  TRUTH  is  a committee  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  came  to  Chicago 
last  March  to  recount  the  votes  cast  for  certain  legislative  candidates  and  on 
examining  a few  machines  stored  in  the  warehouse  they  found  that  in  sev- 
eral instances  a fastening  that  secured  an  extension  handle  attached  to  the 
curtain  lever  was  broken,  and  some  of  the  committee  at  once  concluded  that 
this  indicated  tampering. 

But  the  TRUTH  is  the  condition  of  this  extension  handle  was  utterly 
unimportant — no  possible  manipulation  of  it  could  in  any  way  alter  the  vote 
recorded  on  the  interior  of  the  machine. 

The  counters  of  the  machine  are  secured  by  five  different  locks  and  no 
alteration  of  the  record  of  votes  can  be  made  without  bringing  together  the 
keys  of  all  these  locks.  Three  of  the  keys  are  given  to  the  judges  of  election 
in  each  precinct  on  the  night  before  election,  and  after  the  judges  count  the 
votes  on  election  day  these  keys  are  placed  in  a sealed  envelope  and  are 
brought  to  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  by  the  judges  and  are  placed  in 
a guarded  vault  without  breaking  the  seals. 

The  other  two  keys  are  kept  by  the  voting  machine  custodian  at  all 
times.  Therefore,  in  order  to  alter  the  count  recorded  by  a machine  it  would 
be  necessary  to  obtain  the  three  keys  from  the  vault  of  the  Election  Commis- 
sioners’ office  and  also  obtain  the  custodian’s  two  keys — then  if  the  con- 
spirators were  sufficiently  expert  in  manipulating  the  highly  complicated  inte- 
rior mechanism  the  counters  might  be  changed, 

Even  then  the  fraud  would  be  quickly  detected  by  comparing  the  record 
on  the  tampered  machine  with  the  machine  tally  sheets  which  are  sent  in  by 
the  judges  and  clerks  of  election  on  election  night.  These  tally  sheets  are 
sealed  in  envelopes  by  the  judges  of  election  and  are  not  opened  until  the 


10 


general  canvass  is  made  and  the  results  tabulated  in  the  presence  of  the  candi- 
dates or  their  representatives. 

It  may  be  added  that  in  the  entire  history  of  over  600  municipalities  now 
using  machines  there  is  not  one  authentic  instance  of  such  tampering  so  far 
as  can  be  ascertained. 


VI. 

HAS  THE  SUPREME  COURT  DECIDED  THAT  THE  MA- 
CHINES PURCHASED  FOR  CHICAGO  ARE  NOT  IN  COMPLI- 
ANCE WITH  THE  VOTING  MACHINE  LAW? 

No.  The  decision  handed  down  in  the  case  of  Hull  versus  Election 
Commissioners  will  bear  no  such  construction. 

The  TRUTH  is  that  in  the  oral  opinion  as  first  pronounced  by  the 
Court,  October  22,  1912,  the  Court  said: 

“The  Commissioners  have  a right  to  put  voting  machines  in  use,  and  we  do  not 
by  our  judgment  condemn  the  use  of  machines,  or  this  machine.  We  do  not  say  it 
may  not  be  used  in  elections,  but  in  the  election  of  November  5th,  with  its  long  ticket 
complicated  by  the  vote  for  presidential  electors,  the  minority  representation  feature 
of  the  legislature  vote,  and  the  votes  on  bond  propositions  and  questions  of  public  policy, 
the  time  limit  fixed  by  the  statute  is  too  short  for  its  use.” 

In  the  writ  of  mandamus  afterward  actually  issued  by  the  Court  and 
directed  to  the  Election  Commissioners,  the  Court’s  order  was  as  follows: 

“In  those  precincts  in  which  the  voting  machines  may  be  installed  by  you  each 
voter  shall  be  permitted  to  vote  at  his  option  by  ballot  so  furnished  or  by  the  use  of 
said  machine.” 

In  the  final  decision  as  printed  the  Court  said : 

“As  a matter  of  fact,  we  find  that  the  machine  does  not  comply  with  the  law 
in  enabling  the  voter  to  cast  his  vote  in  one  minute  at  the  election  of  November  5,  1912, 
at  which  the  ballot  will  contain  the  names  of  so  many  candidates  and  so  many  proposi- 
tions for  the  choice  of  the  voter.” 

The  foregoing  quotations  clearly  show  that  so  far  from  disqualifying 
the  machines,  the  Court  expressly  allowed  their  use  and  merely  took  the  pre- 
caution to  order  the  Board  (in  view  of  the  exceedingly  large  ballot  voted  at 
that  one  particular  election)  to  provide  paper  ballots  as  well  as  voting 
machines  for  that  election. 

Let  it  be  noted  that  preparatory  to  this  decision  an  Empire  machine  was 
actually  produced  before  the  Supreme  Court  and  was  exhaustively  tested  in 
the  Court’s  presence  and  in  the  presence  of  opposing  parties,  and  that  the 
Court  found  no  ground  for  any  criticism  whatever  except  as  above  indicated. 

Let  it  also  be  noted  that  460  machines  were  used  in  Chicago  at  the 
presidential  election  November  5,  1912,  and  that  machines  were  used  exclu- 
sively in  134  precincts  at  the  municipal  election  of  April  1,  1913,  and  no  one 
has  attempted  to  contest  the  machine  vote  at  either  election  on  the  ground  that 
the  machine  was  not  in  compliance  with  the  law.  Its  legal  sufficiency  stands 
admitted. 


VII. 

ARE  THE  MACHINES  PURCHASED  SUSCEPTIBLE  TO 
FRAUDULENT  MANIPULATION  AND  ARE  THEY  “WHOLLY 
INADEQUATE  FOR  THE  USES  SPECIFIED  IN  THE  STAT- 
UTES”? 

It  has  been  shown  on  previous  pages  that  the  Illinois  State  Voting 
Machine  Commissioners  have  certified  that  the  Empire  Machine  complies 
with  the  law,  and  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  after  a rigorous  test  of 


11 


the  machine,  made  in  the  Court  and  in  the  presence  of  those  who  opposed  the 
machine,  refused  to  condemn  the  device,  but,  on  the  contrary,  expressly 
allowed  its  use  at  the  presidential  election  of  1912. 

More  conclusive,  however,  as  to  the  efficiency  of  the  machine  is  the 
experience  of  its  use  in  actual  elections,  and  upon  that  point  the  evidence  in 
its  favor  is  overwhelming. 

CHICAGO  EXPERIENCE.  Machines  have  been  used  for  actual  vot- 
ing in  precincts  of  Chicago  at  the  following  elections: 


Nov.,  1905,  No.  of  machines  used 11 

Apr.,  1907,  “ “ “ “ 37 

Apr.,  1911,  “ “ “ “ 16 

Apr.,  1912,  * “ “ “ 192 

Nov.,  1912,  “ “ “ “ 460 

Apr.,  1913,  “ “ “ “ 134 


Of  these  850  tests,  made  in  the  actual  polling  of  votes,  786  were  made 
with  Empire  machines  and  57  were  made  with  Dean,  Columbia  and  U.  S. 
Standard  machines.  The  three  latter  machines  belong  to  the  Empire  Company 
and  their  chief  features  are  incorporated  in  the  Empire  machine.  In  no 
single  instance  were  any  of  these  machines  fraudulently  manipulated  and  in 
no  instance  did  they  fail  to  operate  properly. 

Still  more  conclusive,  perhaps,  is  the  testimony  of  judges  and  clerks  of 
election  who  controlled  and  observed  the  operation  of  the  machines.  Their 
opinion  is  almost  unanimously  favorable  to  the  machines. 

Recently  the  Board  caused  a canvass  to  be  made  among  judges  and 
clerks  of  the  First,  Eighteenth  and  Twenty-first  Wards  of  Chicago.  These 
wards  were  selected  because  in  popular  apprehension  they  are  liable  to  present 
more  election  difficulties  than  other  wards. 

The  Board’s  employes  who  made  the  canvass  were  instructed  to  have 
written  reports  made  by  all  judges  and  clerks,  to  file  the  same  whether  they 
were  favorable  or  unfavorable,  and,  in  no  case,  seek  to  influence  the  opinion 
of  the  writer.  In  short,  a fair,  free  opinion  was  sought. 

The  result  was  that  out  of  a total  of  670  election  judges  and  clerks  in 
the  above  named  wards  (all  of  whom  have  had  experience  with  machines  in 
one  or  more  elections)  560  sent  in  reports  highly  favorable  to  the  machines ; 
108  failed  to  respond  owing  to  death,  removal,  absence  from  the  city,  or  neg- 
lect, and  ONLY  TWO  judges  sent  in  unfavorable  reports.  It  is  doubtful  if 
these  election  officials  could  agree  so  nearly  unanimously  upon  any  other  item 
of  election  law  or  election  procedure ! 

All  of  these  reports  are  on  file  in  the  Election  Commissioners’  office  and 
are  open  to  inspection. 

EXPERIENCE  IN  OTHER  CITIES. 

Want  of  space  forbids  even  a recital  of  the  names  of  over  600  counties, 
towns  and  cities  in  the  several  States  where  voting  machines  made  by  the 
Empire  Company  are  now  in  successful  operation.  We,  therefore,  present 
only  a few  illustrations  which  we  deem  most  apt  examples. 

HARTFORD,  CONN. 

As  long  ago  as  1902  this  city  (having  in  1910  a population  of  98, 91 5) 
took  up  the  question  of  voting  machines.  Realizing  that  the  reasonable  way  of 
ascertaining  the  efficiency  of  machines  was  to  inquire  into  the  results  of  their 
use  in  other  places,  the  City  Council  directed  their  Board  of  Selectmen  to 
make  the  proper  inquiries  and  report  back. 

12 


The  Selectmen  investigated  and  reported  and  the  report  was  printed  in 
the  Hartford  City  Council  Proceedings  of  February  io,  1902,  and  a certified 
copy  of  these  proceedings  is  now  on  file  in  our  office.  In  their  report  the 
Selectmen  said: 

“These  machines  have  been  thoroughly  proven  and  tested,  having  been  in  prac- 
tical use  for  four  years  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  are  the  only  method  of  voting 
in  twenty  cities  and  over  fifty  towns  in  this  (New  York)  State.  By  their  use  the 
accurate  results  of  each  election  are  obtained  promptly  at  the  close  of  the  polls  and 
all  recounts  and  election  contests  are  reduced  to  a minimum.  The  expenses  of  elections 
are  greatly  reduced.” 

As  a result  of  this  investigation,  Hartford  installed  a complete  supply 
of  machines  and  now,  after  ten  years  of  uninterrupted  use  of  them,  under 
date  of  June  20,  1913,  Harry  F.  Smith,  Town  and  City  Clerk,  and  H.  B.  Phil- 
brick,  Chairman  of  Election  Commissioners,  certified  in  regard  to  their 
Empire  Voting  Machines  as  follows: 

“Everybody  favors  them  here.  Time  saved  from  3 to  8 hours  each  election,  and 
from  $600.00  to  $1,000.00  each  election;  perfectly  accurate;  no  chance  for  fraud.  We 
would  not  go  back  to  the  paper  ballot  for  anything.  They  are  legalized  by  the  State 
laws  and  it  was  left  optional  for  the  towns  to  adopt.  Nearly  all  the  cities  have  adopted 
them  and  town  after  town  is  putting  them  in.” 


INDIANAPOLIS,  IND. 

This  city  (census  1910)  has  a population  of  233,650,  representing  all 
sorts  of  classes,  races  and  political  opinions ; so  that  the  average  precinct  in 
that  city  may  properly  be  compared  with  the  average  precinct  in  Chicago. 

From  sworn  testimony  of  Indianapolis  officials,  now  on  file  in  our  office, 
it  appears  that  Indianapolis  in  1902  purchased  10  U.  S.  Standard  Voting 
Machines,  each  weighing  1,400  pounds.  In  1904  another  installment  of  130 
machines  was  purchased.  In  1910  another  lot  of  10  was  purchased,  and  in 
1912  another  and  final  installment  of  3 machines  were  bought,  so  that  now  all 
of  Marion  County  (including  the  City  of  Indianapolis)  is  supplied  with 
machines  and  use  them  at  all  general  elections. 

These  ten  years  of  experience  with  a machine  substantially  the  same 
as  the  Empire  machine,  and  made  by  the  Empire  Company,  ought  to  furnish 
fairly  conclusive  evidence  as  to  the  efficiency  of  the  machine  purchased  for 
Chicago.  What  is  the  testimony? 

In  a sworn  statement  of  May  7,  1913,  made  by  James  Kervan,  John 
Kitley  and  Charles  Maguire,  constituting  the  Board  of  County  Commissioners 
of  Marion  County,  the  affiants  testify  to  the  perfect  satisfaction  given  by  the 
machine.  Among  other  things  the  sworn  statement  says: 

“Affiants  further  state  that  since  the  installation  of  the  voting  machines  in 
said  County  there  has  been  but  one  election  contest,  and  that  that  suit  proceeded 
no  further  than  the  opening  of  said  machines  and  the  verification  of  the  votes  therein 
recorded;  that  during  the  time  Australian  system  was  in  use  contests  were  frequent 
and  injunction  suits  providing  for  the  preservation  of  ballots  numerous;  that,  by  the 
use  of.  said  voting  machines,  this  has  been  eliminated  and  the  Board  has  as  yet  to 
ascertain  of  a single  instance  in  which  any  election  fraud  has  been  perpetrated,  or 
even  attempted,  in  the  use  of  said  machines ; that  there  has  been  a saving  to  said 
County  of  a sum  equal  to  the  purchase  price  of  said  machines;  that  the  use  of  said 
machines  in  this  County  has  given  the  voter  confidence  and  the  Board  is  of  the 
opinion  that  should  it  decide  to  return  to  the  Australian  system  of  voting  its  action 
would  be  met  with  a storm  of  protest  from  voters  of  all  parties  and  that  the  voters 
and  taxpayers  are  thoroughly  satisfied  with  the  machine  in  use.” 

In  perfect  agreement  with  the  foregoing  is  a sworn  statement  of  the 
same  date  made  by  John  Rauch,  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Marion  County 
and  ex-officio  member  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  Marion 
County,  and  Martin  M.  Hugg  and  Leroy  J.  Keach,  the  three  together  constitut- 
ing the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  said  County,  Mr.  Keach  being 
the  Chairman  of  the  Board.  This  statement  says  in  part: 


13 


™Te’  Hnf  several,  Precincts  there  were  m?re  than  oOO  votes  cast  Fram  our  exDerh 

°4t^C^S  ^tfi2^es  thWa1  ?£eey°fo^ 

they  voted0tforn;°  whH^un^e^^e^baUo/^system^they^neve^knew^  1°^ 
money,  prevents  fraud,  and  has  given  absolute  satisfaction.” 

, MIn  a sworn  statement  made  May  6,  1913,  by  William  T.  Patten,  Auditor 
of  Marion  County,  this  official  among  other  things  says: 

irreeulaThfeVthteha"tSetW  S2Ld  machines  h“  absolutely  estopped  all  election  frauds  and 
r”leS’ih^n^hoe^have  encouraged  and  increased  voting;  that  there  were  no 
disputes  over  the  1912  election  returns ; that  the  work  of  handling  elections  has  been 
faC1  ltate n’  ?nd  that  ,thu  satisfaction  with  the  machines  fs  general  and  pro- 
or  tamperSTwith  otdef'eated.”  ' ” judgmem  Said  machines  cann0t  be  manipulated 

Beside  the  foregoing  official  sworn  statements  we  have  on  file  in  our 
office  and  open  for  inspection  a number  of  testimonials  recently  made  by  lead- 
ing officials  a.nd  citizens  of  Indianapolis — from  several  of  which  we  extract  the 
following  brief  quotations: 

S.  L.  Shank,  Mayor,  says: 

wf.  JT°r  a n1umber  of  years  voting  machines  have  been  used  in  this  city  and  I have 
ehminatedar  * legltlmate  complamt  concerning  them.  By  their  use  fraud  is  practically 


Edward  A.  Ramsey,  City  Clerk,  says : 

,.  } consider  the  voting  machine  method  far  superior  to  the  discarded  and  His- 
credited  Austrahan  Banoi;  system.  If  I understand  (and  I believe  I do)  the  public  mind 
Indians?^  of , Indianapolis  upon  this  subject,  I am  certain  that  there  is  not  a man  in 
Indianapolis  who  would  be  willing  to  revert  to  the  old  paper  ballot  system. 

Rev.  Victor  J.  Brucker,  Rector  of  St.  Patrick’s  Church,  says: 

r^rJ^heVeLthey  have  ,once  b5?n  adopted  I do  not  think  anyone  would  care  to 
return  to  me  old  process,  slow,  tedious  in  getting  tabulated  returns,  and  often  times 
inaccurate.  1 hey  are  a great  invention,  simple  and  efficient 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Gavisk,  Rector  of  St.  John’s  Church,  says: 

natinnJwiJl1;6  P^St  s^eral  elections  in  Indianapolis  (primary,  city,  county,  state  and 
national  elections)  voting  machines  have  been  in  use  (I  do  not  know  the  name  of 
the  machine),  and  have  given  general  satisfaction;  and,  I think,  have  made  for  the 
purity  of  elections. 


Fred  C>.  Gardner,  President  Columbia  Club  (Republican)  says : 

‘‘The  Columbia  Club  several  years  ago  purchased  a machine  upon  which  to 
conduct  its  own  annual  elections. 

f think  it  is  safe  to  say  that  Indianapolis  would  not  for  a moment  consider 
going  back  to  the  antique  paper  ballot  with  its  attendant  dangers  of  irregularities  and 
traud.  I can  also  state  that  there  has  been  absolutely  no  trouble  with  the  machines 
they  are  simple  of  operation  and  the  voters  experience  no  difficulty  whatever  in 
casting  their  votes  on  the  same.  Voting  machines  are  here  to  stay! 

Fred  E.  Barrett,  President  Indiana  Democratic  Club,  says: 

‘ The  machine  saves  time,  registers  accurately,  saves  mutilation  of  votes,  and 
traud  of . every  land;  has  been  used  exclusively  in  this  county  for  many  years  and 
has  practically  paid  for  itself  without  injuring  the  machines  by  wear,  and  they  are 
now  in  good  condition.  The  voting  machine  was  used  at  our  last  Club  election. 
James  A.  Stewart,  City  Editor,  says: 

The  Indianapolis  Star  heartily  commends  voting  machines  as  the  agents  of 
speed,  purity,  and  accuracy  in  elections.  They  have  been  used  in  elections  in  this 
community  for  the  past  nine  or  ten  years  and  have  given  universal  satisfaction.  In- 
dianapolis would  under  no  circumstances  return  to  the  ancient  and  unreliable  paper 
ballot  system. 

L.  H.  Lewis,  Secretary  Indianapolis  Chamber  of  Commerce,  says: 

The  establishment  of  the  voting  machines  in  this  county  marked  an  epoch  in 
governmental  affairs  and  is  certainly  a big  improvement  over  the  old  ballot  system.  At 


14 


the  present  moment  we  do  not  recall  one  instance  where  a righteous  criticism  was  ever 
made  in  Marion  County  upon  the  operation  of  the  machines  used  here. 

Wm.  K.  Sproule,  Cashier  National  City  Bank,  says: 

“It  is  generally  conceded  here  that  the  use  of  machines  has  reduced  election- 
frauds  to  an  absolute  minimum,  that  they  have  encouraged  voting  and  have  reduced 
the  expense  of  elections  in  many  ways — not  the  least  of  which  is  the  fact  that  we  have 
had  no  election  contests  for  the  past  five  years  and  only  two  previous  to  that  time  since 
the  machines  have  been  installed.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  this  city  would  under  no  con- 
ditions return  to  the  old  method  of  voting. 

C.  A.  Schrader,  Wholesale  Grocer,  says : 

“I  do  not  believe  that  the  citizens  of  Indianapolis  would  be  willing  to  return  to- 
the  long,  cumbersome  paper  ballot  that  we  discarded  years  ago  in  favor  of  the  honest,, 
up-to-date  method  of  voting. 

T.  Taggert,  National  Democratic  Committeeman  for  Indiana,  says: 

“They  are  easy  for  the  voters  to  understand  and  operate,  and  we  have  been: 
able  to  cast  more  votes  and  have  them  tabulated  much  earlier  than  under  the  old 
Australian  system.  In  fact  they  have  been  very  satisfactory  to  the  voters  of  Marion 
County. 

All  of  the  foregoing  testimonials  are  on  file  in  our  office  and  open  for 
inspection ; and  thousands  more  might  be  obtained.  There  is  but  one  senti- 
ment concerning  voting  machines  in  Indianapolis ! 

That  city  is  near  by  and  might  be  heard  from  quickly.  Why  did  not  the 
hostile  Chicago  newspapers  give  a report  from  Indianapolis? 

MILWAUKEE,  WIS. 

Milwaukee  is  another  near-by  city.  Its  population  (census  of  1910)  was. 
373>857.  It  is  an  industrial  city  and  probably  has  a larger  proportion  of  for- 
eign born  citizens  than  any  other  American  city. 

The  city  of  Milwaukee  and  Milwaukee  County  are  entirely  supplied  with 
U.  S.  Standard  voting  machines.  The  city  first  installed  machines  in  1902  and 
shortly  afterward  supplied  all  precincts  in  the  city ; and  the  county  soon  fol- 
lowed. 

Milwaukee,  therefore,  has  had  eleven  years  of  experience.  What  has. 
it  been? 

In  a sworn  statment  made  May  13,  1913,  Louis  G.  Widule,  County 
Clerk  of  Milwaukee  County  says  among  other  things: 

“Affiant  further  says  that  on  account  of  the  perfection  and  accuracy  of  the 
machine  election  contests  have  nearly  ceased,  whereas,  they  were  frequent  under  the 
old,  cumbersome  Australian  system;  and  that  election  frauds  have  almost  entirely  disap- 
peared; that  said  machines  are  of  good  material  and  workmanship  and  that  they  are 
equipped  with  all  devices  that  the  county  needs  at  an  election,  including  restricted  vote 
device ; and  that  the  voters  would  be  loth  to  forego  the  convenience  of  the  voting 
machine  and  would  fight  for  its  retention.” 

Under  the  official  seal  of  the  Board  of  Election  Commissioners  of  the 
city  of  Milwaukee,  May  14,  1913,  John  C.  Reutman,  Chairman,  and  Herman 
C.  Schultz,  Secretary,  say: 

“Voting  machines  have  been  used  in  each  and  every  precinct  of  the  City  of 
Milwaukee  for  ten  or  twelve  years  at  all  elections.  They  are  satisfactory  in  every  way. 
They  have  paid  for  themselves  during  the  time  they  have  been  in  use  by  reducing  elec- 
tion expenses.  They  have  resulted  in  practically  no  contests  and  by  their  use  we  have 
dispensed  with  the  services  of  two  clerks  of  election  in  each  precinct  who  were  paid 
$6.00  per  day.  They  have  proven  an  absolute  barrier  to  the  frauds  which  were  insepar- 
able from  the  superannuated  paper  ballots.  Machines  have  been  a great  step  forward  in 
the  civic  life  of  Milwaukee.” 

P.  F.  Leuch,  City  Clerk  of  Milwaukee  under  seal  of  his  office,  May  12,. 
1913,  certified  as  follows: 

“As  compared  with  the  old  ballot  system  we  prefer  the  machines  for  the 
reason  that  a vote  once  cast  is  counted  and  it  cannot  be  changed  by  election  officers.  It 
does  away  with  fraud  that  formerly  existed  in  elections,  and  it  is  a more  economical 
way  of  conducting  elections  and  leads  to  better  efficiency  in  the  conduct  of  elections.” 


15 


G.  A.  Bading,  present  Mayor  of  Milwaukee  upon  his  official  letter-head, 
May  12,  1913,  says: 

, “The  machines  have  been  in  use  here  for  a number  of  years  and  results  from 
them,  I believe,  have  been  highly  satisfactory,  especially  when  compared  with  the  old 
Australian  ballot  system.  With  machines  in  the  booths  at  election  time  I am  certain 
that  there  is  less  opportunity  for  fraud  and  less  chance  of  mistakes  in  registering  the 
choice  of  voters.  This  has  been  repeatedly  proven  here  in  recounts.” 

Beside  the  foregoing  official  expressions  we  present  the  following  quota- 
tions from  testimonials  of  leading  citizens: 

Emil  Seidel,  Former  Socialist  Mayor,  says : 

. From  all  that  I have  been  able  to  gather  concerning  the  use  of  the  machines  in 
our  city  they  have  met  with  the  general  approval  of  the  public.  The  voting  machines 
have  served  us  well  and  I think  that  a proposition  to  abolish  them  would  meet  with 
most  obstinate  opposition. 

J.  D.  Jenkins,  Former  Judge  of  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  says: 

“It  has  at  least,  two  merits  which  stamp  it  as  indispensable.  First,  it  absolutely 
prevents  fraud  in  the  changing  or  counting  of  votes  and,  second,  it  speeds  the  telling 
of  the  result  and  obviates  all  errors  in  the  counting  of  the  ballots.  Personally,  because 
of  defective  eye-sight,  the  machine  is  not  of  much  use  to  me,  being  obliged  to  rely 
upon  the  honesty  of  an  official;  but,  speaking  generally,  I think  it  a great  success. 

Wm.  Walter  Webb,  Episcopal  Bishop  of  Milwaukee,  says: 

“I  feel  very  strongly  that  the  voting  machines  have  many  advantages  in  our 
elections,  here  in  Milwaukee,  as  far  as  honesty  and  quickness  of  return  votes  are 
concerned. 

John  Poppendieck,  Jr.,  Managing  Editor  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  says: 

“I  do  not  think  the  electors  of  this  city  would  ever  consider  going  back  to  the 
old  ballot  system.  Machines  have  simplified  the  method  of  holding  elections,  have 
eliminated  all  suspicions  of  fraud  and  ballotbox  stuffing  and,  in  case  of  contest,  the 
matter  has  always  been  speedily  settled  and  with  little  public  expense. 

Osmor  R.  Smith,  Managing  Editor  Milwaukee  Leader,  says : 

From  my  observations  here  in  Milwaukee,  where  the  voting  machines  have 
been  generally  used  for  a number  of  years,  I feel  confident  that  Chicago  would  never 
have  any  occasion  to  regret  adopting  the  machines — at  least  that  portion  of  Chicago 
which  is  satisfied  when  it  has  cast  the  single  vote  it  is  entitled  to.  The  machine  is 
quicker,  more  occurate,  and  safer  than  the  old  ballot.  It  practically  eliminated  the 
possibility  of  fraudulent  voting  and  the  fraudulent  counting  of  votes.  It  also  makes 
possible  the  elimination  of  many  election  officials  whose  work  it  does  better  than  they 
can  do  it.  The  voting  machine  is  to  the  election  what  the  typewriter  is  to  the  modern 
business  office;  in  addition  it  is  a pretty  efficient  guardian  of  the  ballot-box. 

P.  P.  Donahue,  President,  H.  A.  Plumb,  Secretary,  Milwaukee  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce,  say: 

“It  is  the  belief  of  the  undersigned  that  the  use  of  voting  machines  in  Milwaukee 
has  been  more  than  satisfactory  and  that  the  experience  of  the  past  dozen  years  or  so 
that  they  have  been  employed  has  shown  the  wisdom  of  replacing  the  early  day  vote- 
recording methods  by  the  time  and  labor  saving  voting  machines.  You  would  probably 
not  find  many  Milwaukee  voters  who  would  care  to  have  them  discarded.” 

Wm.  Geo.  Bruce,  Sec’y  Merchants’  & Manufacturers’  Ass’n  of  Mil- 
waukee, says : 

“For  a period  of  ten  years  and  until  about  seven  years  ago  the  undersigned  was 
the  City  and  County  Chairman  of  one  of  the  political  parties  here  and  had,  during  that 
time,  an  opportunity  to  note,  at  clpse_  range,  the  operations  and  the  utlity  of  the  voting 
machine.  The  opposition  to  their  introduction  advanced  various  arguments  against 
them.  New  arguments  were  advanced  after  the  machines  had  been  introduced — it  is 
unnecessary  for  the  purposes  of  this  letter  to  repeat  them.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  with 
time  and  experience  these  arguments  have  fallen  to  the  ground  and  the  opposition  has 
subsided.” 

Edmund  T.  Mehns,  Sec’y  Social-Democratic  Co.  Com.,  says: 

“As  Chairman  for  the  Social  Democratic  County  Committee  of  Milwaukee  County 
for  the  past  ten  years,  and  at  the  present  time  the  Secretary  of  the  County  Committee 
of  the  Social-Democratic  Party  of  Milwaukee  County,  State  of  Wisconsin,  I wish  to 
say  that  the  City  of  Milwaukee,  to  my  knowledge,  has  used  voting  machines  during  this 
entire  time  in  all  of  its  Judicial,  School  Board,  Municipal  and  General  Elections;  and 

16 


that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  the  voting  machines  have  proven  satisfactory  to 
ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  people  using  the  same  during  this  period.” 

Orin  M.  Peters,  Sec’y  Democratic  Co.  Com.,  says : 

“Milwaukee,  generally,  regards  them  as  an  absolute  bar  to  the  usual  election 
frauds  which  were  inseparable  from  the  Australian  ballot.  I do  not  believe  the  citizens 
of  Milwaukee  would  be  any  more  willing  to  revert  to  the  paper  ballot  than  would  the 
farmers  to  change  from  the  modern  reaper  back  to  the  scythe.” 

All  of  the  original  affidavits,  certificates  and  testimonials  from  which  the 
foregoing  quotations  are  taken  are  on  file  in  our  office  and  are  open  for  in- 
spection. 


MINNEAPOLIS,  MINN. 

This  city  having  a population  (census  of  1910)  of  301,408,  purchased 
in  1908  a full  supply  of  voting  machines  and  in  1910,  in  order  to  accommodate 
her  rapid  increase  of  voters,  another  installment  was  bought — making  226 
machines  in  all.  These  were  Dean  voting  machines  supplied  by  the  Empire 
Company  and  in  all  essential  particulars  are  the  same  as  the  Empire  voting 
machine. 

Minneapolis  has  used  her  machines  for  about  5 years — what  has  been  her 
experience?  The  following  quotations  from  testimonials  all  of  them  dated 
in  June,  1913,  will  show. 

Wallace  G.  Nye,  who  has  for  many  years  been  prominent  in  political 
and  civic  affairs  in  Minneapolis  and  is  now  Mayor  of  the  city,  on  his  official 
letter-head  says: 

“Personally  I am  strongly  in  favor  of  the  use  of  voting  machines  as,  I believe, 

nearly  all  of  our  citizens  and  voters  are;  and  I cannot  understand  why  a community 

like  Chicago  should  question  the  advisability  of  adopting  machines  or  should  ever  desire 
to  return  to  the  paper  ballot.” 

Henry  N.  Knott,  City  Clerk,  certifying  under  the  corporate  seal  of  the 
city  says: 

“There  never  has  been  the  suggestion  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  machine. 

In  1910  the  election  of  a Mayor  resulted  in  so  close  a vote  between  the  two  leaders 

on  the  ticket  (James  C.  Haynes,  Democratic,  and  Eugene  Satterlee,  Republican,)  that  a 
recount  was  asked  for.  The  returns  of  the  machines  showed  Mr.  Haynes  34  votes  ahead 
of  Mr.  Satterlee.  There  were  37,760  votes  cast  for  Mayor,  all  told.  The  recount  re- 
sulted in  the  majority  for  Mr.  Haynes  being  reduced  one  vote,  his  final  plurality  being 
33  votes.  In  this  case  also  it  was  clear  that  the  mistake  was  one  of  misreading  and 
not  one  caused  by  the  failure  of  the  machine  to  do  that  which  was  required  of  it.” 

Eugene  Satterlee,  head  of  the  Salisbury-Satterlee  Mfg.  Co.,  and  the 
defeated  candidate  above  referred  to,  says: 

“I  speak  in  all  sincerity  when  I tell  you  that  I firmly  believe  the  voting  machines 
have  accomplished  all  of  the  objects  above  set  forth  and  have  been  the  principle  agent 
in  purifying  elections  and  political  conditions,  generally  in  Minneapolis.” 

Twenty-four  members  of  the  City  Council  out  of  a total  of  twenty-six 
say  in  a duly  certified  document: 

“In  favor  of  the  machines  it  was  urged  that  they  would  materially  reduce  the  cost 
of  elections,  prevent  tampering  with  the  ballots,  promote  clean  elections  and  positively 
and  accurately  record  the  will  of  the  voter  thereby  reducing  election  contests  to  the 
minimum.  In  our  judgment  the  machines  purchased  have  done  all  these  things  claimed 
for  them.” 

Fred  T.  Williams,  for  three  terms  Secretary  to  Mayor  Haynes  and  now 
Assistant  General  Manager  of  the  Penn  Mutual  Life  Co.,  says : 

“I  consider  the  machines  a splendid  institution,  a safeguard  against  fraud,  a pro- 
tection to  the  voter  and  distinctly  an  advanced  step  toward  honest  elections.” 

Frank  T.  Hefifelfinger,  President  of  Peavey  Co.  (Grain  dealers),  says: 

“They  have  withstood  the  tests  in  splendid  style;  we  regard  them  as  a marvelous 
mechanical  device.  They  have  not  failed  in  a single  instance  to  truly  record  and  pre- 
serve from  tampering  hands  the  will  of  the  voters.  This  could  never  be  said  of  the 


17 


paper  ballot.  I hope  the  day  will  never  come  when  Minneapolis  will  be  without  this 
means  of  registering  its  political  preference.” 

F.  H.  Wells,  President  of  the  Globe  Company,  says: 

“The  voting  machine  in  Minneapolis  has  been  a positive  advance  step.  Business 
men  gave  it  their  approval  as  a means  of  eliminating  election  contests  and  stamping 
out  that  predominant  evil  of  elections,  the  tampering  with  the  ballot.  I am  pleased  to 
say  that  since  the  inauguration  of  the  voting  machines  in  Minneapolis  we  have  been 
absolutely  free  of  even  so  much  as  talk  of  ballot  tampering.” 

Arthur  J.  Leahy,  Vice  President  of  The  General  Contracting  Co.  (pav- 
ing),  writes: 

“When  Chicago  finds  itself  equipped  with  a voting  machine  for  every  precinct 
it  can  well  congratulate  itself  upon  having  delivered  a body  blow  to  political  scull- 
duggery,  juggling  and  manipulation;  and  it  is  only  from  these  sources  that  the  voting 
machine  need  fear  that  stones  will  be  thrown.” 

Thomas  J.  Hamlin,  General  Manager  of  The  Labor  Review  (organ  of 
the  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly),  writes: 

“I  am  an  ardent  advocate  of  voting  machines.  They  are  an  advanced  step  in 
election  machinery,  quick,  accurate,  fair  and,  mark  this,  honest!” 

Joseph  Chapman,  Vice-President  of  the  Northwestern  National  Bank> 
says : 

“There  has  been  no  failure  of  the  voting  machines  in  Minneapolis  that  I ever 
heard  of,  and  the  citizens  generally  are  very  much  pleased  with  the  results  obtained.” 

L.  J.  Boughner,  City  Editor  of  the  Minneapolis  Tribune,  says: 

“Compared  with  the  tedious  work  of  handling  the  paper  ballot  returns  the  voting 
machines  have  been  a real  joy.  One  can  shut  up  shop  and  go  home  shortly  after  the 
polls  close  so  speedily  are  the  machine  returns  in ; and  in  going  home  one  can  feel 
sure  that  the  returns  as  received  and  put  into  the  extras  are  correct.  The  few  election 
contests  we  have  had  since  the  advent  of  the  machines  only  testify  to  the  futility  of 
contesting  at  all;  for,  it  is  noteworthy,  that  we  have  yet  to  find  a single  machine  which 
has  not  accurately  expressed  the  will  of  the  voters.  There  have  been  one  or  two  little 
mistakes  found  but  these  mistakes  were  not  due  to  the  machines  but  to  the  error  of 
the  election  judges  who  failed  to  properly  transfer  the  totals.” 

BUFFALO,  N.  Y. 

This  city  has  a population  of  423,715  in  1910.  Buffalo  installed  voting 
machines  (Empire  type)  in  1900  and  their  use  was  gradually  extended  to  all 
of  Erie  County  including  the  city  of  Tonawanda,  city  of  Lackawanna  and 
twenty-five  towns. 

The  early  experience  of  Buffalo  has  been  referred  to  in  this  pamphlet 
in  the  testimonials  concerning  Hartford. 

Further  experience  of  Buffalo  is  expressed  in  a testimonial  from  Frank 
J.  Schmidt,  Commissioner  of  Elections  for  Erie  County,  who  says  under  date 
of  June  23,  1913 : 

“There  is  a great  deal  of  time  saved  by  using  the  voting  machines.  The  returns 
are  printed  in  the  newspapers  and  are  upon  the  streets  within  one  hour  after  the  closing 
of  the  polls.  They  are  very  accurate  and  prevent  any  possibility  of  fraud.  The  ma- 
chines have  done  very  satisfactory  work  in  this  County  and  I know  that  the  voters 
would  not  want  to  go  back  to  the  old  form  of  voting  by  ballot.”  . 

This  experience  of  Buffalo,  covering  13  years  of  uninterrupted  use  of 
voting  machines  must  close  our  list  of  testimonials.  Evidence  from  hundreds 
of  other  cities,  town  and  counties  could  be  produced  if  space  allowed. 

Candor  compels  us  to  admit  that  in  several  instances  machines  have  been 
installed  and  afterward  discontinued ; but  in  no  instance  has  it  been  shown 
that  the  machines  were  discontinued  because  they  failed  to  work  properly. 
In  some  cases  changes  of  the  election  laws  making  larger  machines  necessary, 
in  others  judicial  decisions  on  constitutional  law,  partisan  politics  and  the 
active  opposition  of  political  bosses  and  vote-brokers  account  for  all  such  re- 
actions ; while  opposed  to  these  few  instances  stand  the  unquestioned  experi- 
ence of  a multitude  of  communities  including  representative  large  cities  and 
whole  counties  showing  that  voting  machines  are  time-savers,  money-savers 
and  fraud-preventers. 


18 


VIII. 


' 

DID  THE  ELECTION  COMMISSIONERS  ARBITRARILY 
LOAD  THE  CITY  OF  CHICAGO  WITH  AN  OPPRESSIVE  AND 
UNMANAGEABLE  DEBT? 

The  price  paid  for  the  machines  sounds  large  and  the  newspapers  which 
have  been  busy  “concocting  a case”  have  not  failed  to  take  advantage  of  the 
fact. 

The  following  reflections,  however,  will  probably  reassure  the  taxpayers 
of  the  city : 

The  total  appropriations  for  city  uses  last  year  amounted  to  nearly 
seventy  millions  of  dollars.  Was  it  unreasonable  to  ask  that  out  of  this  im- 
mense sum  a sufficient  amount  should  be  set  aside  to  meet  one  or  two  of  the 
payments  for  voting  machines  as  they  fall  due? 

Just  now  Chicago  is  contemplating  many  large  improvements  which  will 
cost  vast  sums.  It  is  all  right — outer  harbor,  new  bridges,  subways,  new 
parks,  playgrounds,  bathing  beaches  and  the  “City  Beautiful !” — but  would  it 
not  be  wise  to  first  provide  for  the  thing  that  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of 
municipal  advance — HONEST  ELECTIONS?  That  would  be  beautiful  in- 
deed ! 

Chicago  is  not  poor.  If  her  revenues  were  fairly  collected  she  would 
have  funds  in  abundance. 

The  fact  is,  however,  that  exceedingly  wealthy  TAX  DODGERS,  corpo- 
rations and  individuals,  some  of  whom  have  been  prominent  in  denouncing 
iwhat  they  call  “The  voting  machine  deal,”  have  defrauded  the  city  year  after 
year  of  just  and  lawful  taxes  amounting  to  millions  of  dollars.  Take  for 
illustration  the  following: 

On  January  8,  1913,  a committee  of  the  City  Council  reporting  on  tax- 
ation to  the  City  Council  said:  “Mortgages  are  subject  to  taxation  and  the 

records  in  the  Recorder’s  Office  show  that  there  were  $300,000,000  of  mort- 
gages recorded  in  that  office  last  year;  but  there  were  not  $100,000  assessed  for 
taxation !” 

In  the  same  report  the  Committee  pointed  out  what  it  termed  “The  most 
glaring  discrimination  in  the  assessment  of  real  estate  in  favor  of  railroads.” 
The  amount  of  taxes  thus  dodged  was  not  specified  by  the  Committee  but  it 
must  have  been  millions  of  dollars. 

In  the  case  of  People  ex  rel  John,  C.  Harding  vs.  Board  of  Review  to 
compel  the  Board  to  tax  the  capital  stock  of  17  specified  big  corporations 
owned  in  Chicago  (mainly  the  big  packers)  the  sworn  petition  shows  that  such 
capital  stock,  though  held  liable  to  taxation  by  a final  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois,  was  not  assessed  at  all  for  either  of  the  five  years  ending 
with  the  year  1909;  and  the  petition  shows  that  the  amount  of  personal  prop- 
erty of  these  17  corporations  which  dodged  assessment  was  for  each  of  the 
Eve  years  $223,202,600;  or,  for  the  five  years,  more  than  a BILLION  OF 
DOLLARS.  If  the  stockholders  in  these  17  corporations  could  successfully 
dodge  so  large  an  amount  what  huge  figures  would  be  necessary  to  express  the 
evasions  of  all  the  other  corporations  in  Chicago ! 

In  a similar  case  settled  in  court  in  1909  a few  of  the  stockholders  in 
the  International  Harvester  Co.,  as  a compromise,  paid  $167,000  back  taxes 
which  was  but  a small  part  of  the  amount  claimed.  But  the  striking  thing 
about  the  case  was  the  fact  brought  out  that  no  taxes  had  ever  been  paid  on 
isuch  stocks  previously — they  had  always  escaped  before ! 

Recently  (according  to  The  Chicago  Record-Herald  of  May  9,  1913) 
certain  tax  experts  furnished  the  Board  of  Assessors  with  a long  list  of  un- 


19 


taxed  wealthy  stockholders  and  gave  “information  concerning  millions  of  dol- 
lars in  hitherto  untaxed  stocks  in  the  hands  of  Chicagoans.” 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  warrants  or  certificates  of  indebted- 
ness which  have  been  audited  and  issued  for  payment  of  the  purchase  price  of 
the  machines,  are  by  provision  of  the  contract  to  be  paid  for  “out  of  any  money 
then  or  thereafter  available  in  the  City  Treasury,”  and  the  contract  further 
provides  for  a low  rate  of  interest  ( 4 yA  per  cent)  in  case  of  deferred  pay- 
ments. 

If  the  management  in  Chicago  is  nearly  as  capable  as  those  in  Indian- 
apolis and  Milwaukee  have  proved  to  be  Chicago  will  be  able  to  pay  for  her 
machines,  as  those  cities  did,  out  of  the  money  saved  by  diminished  election 
expenses. 

The  voting  machine  indebtedness  should  not  be  a burden  but  a boon. 
Extended  over  a term  of  years,  through  the  medium  of  certificates  or  judg- 
ments, the  annual  payments  would  not  be  noticed,  and  in  a term  of  years 
the  machines  would  pay  for  themselves  several  times  over  out  of  the  savings 
incident  to  their  operations. 

The  machines,  for  instance,  make  unnecessary  the  services  of  clerks  of 
election.  The  work  of  clerks  has  to  do  with  two  things  in  the  main : tallying 
and  tabulating,  and  the  handling  of  poll  books.  The  machines  do  the  counting 
and  they  substitute  the  poll  books. 

Here  is  a fairly  accurate  estimate  of  the  possible  saving  in  1914  were 
voting  machines  installed  throughout  all  Chicago  with  clerks  eliminated: 


Saving  of  2 clerks  in  each  of  1,266  precincts 

Saving  by  elimination  of  10,000  poll  books  at  a cost  of  10  cents  each.  . 

Saving  in  other  election  forms 

Saving  in  paper  ballots 

Saving  in  office  work 


$139,260 

1,000 

2,500 

30.000 

15.000 


Total  saving  $187,760 

To  this  should  be  added  the  saving  in  expensive  and  protracted  contests. 
The  Hoyne-Cunnea  contest  alone  has  cost  the  taxpayers  tens  of  thousands 
of  dollars. 

The  foregoing  pages  contain  the  Truth.  We  know  it  and  challenge  in- 
vestigation. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3 0112  073474832 


